The SAAF Forum

An update on Gripen.

Gripen NG according to some unofficial Swedish sources I found, is expected to have a have full supercruising capabilities with "full - air to air - air to ground - configuration, with a max speed over Mach two+, extra fuel tank included. " Can't swear to that speed though, but I can swear to that Gripen could supercruise with full payload as early as 2001. Look at page two and enjoy :) http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE46 ... 001_01.pdf


And Saab is pretty pi**ed off on Norway's way of handling the procurement for new aircrafts, no wonder if you ask me. http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRelati ... lution.htm
Sort of shady treatment I think considering that the Norwegians knew firsthand just how good that first generation of Gripen was :) Them and the Finnish meet Gripen at 2003 where we, if might say so, kicked their collective asses :) What we meet at that time was American aircrafts F-16 and F-18! and Gripen was found to have a tighter turning ratio than any of them.

And here is another good page if you want the latest news, it presents the released unclassified executive summaries of firm proposals to Norway and the Netherlands, and do some comparisons. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 234d227276

Here is some quotes from 'yesterday and one about what we can expect of Gripens future (SAR)
Some of it you might gave seen before, but, I think it's worth reading again ( Yep, I'm biased :))

--------Radar capabilities-------Quoting---older stuff----------------

Ericsson’s future airborne radar is Not Only a Radar, NORA, but also a complete electronic warfare system including jamming and data communication. The new radar will use an Active Electronically Scanned Array, AESA, built up with approximately 1000 individual transmit/receive modules. The antenna, mounted on a single-axis platform, will give well over 200˚ coverage in azimuth. NORA will offer superior performance by virtue of a number of core capabilities at Ericsson – beam agility, beam widening, multi-channel processing, target-specific waveforms and low radar cross-section.....

It's planned to scan +-60 deg electronically and 60 deg mechanically in azimut, permitting scanning over a 240 deg arc and electronically +-60 deg up and downwards. ...

Fully programmable signal and data processors enable the radar to handle these air defence, attack and reconnaissance missions. This also gives the radar a very high growth potential to meet future requirements. The radars flexible waveforms make it possible to avoid ambiguities and allow performance characteristics to be optimized for all operating modes. The radar also matches the data link requirements for advanced medium range missiles...Ericsson has started development work for upgrading the PS05/A multimode radar. Some of the up-grades have been possible to incorporate, since new, faster and more powerful processors and components have become available on the market. An essential part of these upgrades is a new data processor who will replace the D80 processor in the Systems Computer in Swedish Air Force Gripens. It is a Modular Airborne Computer System (MACS) with higher capacity. A significant upgrade of the signal processor is also included which will dramatically enhance functions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS-05/A

---

1. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation.

2. The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots need to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.

3. Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the targets track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.

4. In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.

The Swedish AF is the pioneer of fighter-to-fighter data-link, and the JAS-39 is the first fighter with the NG fighter-to-fighter data-link. However, almost every NG fighter in the world (F/A-22, F/A-18E/F, F-35, EF-2000, Rafale, Su-30MKK/MKI, Su-27SM, Su-35/37, MIG-31) has equipped or will equip soon the same class of NG fighter-to-fighter data-link since then. The Gripen was the first fighter with this kind of revolutional innovation, but it is not unique now.

Will the NG fighter-to-fighter data-link help the fighters like JAS-39 catch the stealthy target at longer distance??? I think the answer is Yes, since even the stealthy fighter can’t make its RCS in every direction as small as its frontal RCS. If you combine the data from the different fighters, AWACS, ground-based air-defense radar and so on in different location with the help of NG data-link, you may catch out the stealthy target earlier then just use the radar of your fighter’s own, as an old saying goes: The unite is the force

---

Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems. The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability. Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful degradation...."

----End Quotes----

And here is the future for SAR, seems very cool. Take a look
http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/cpl ... ubid=41284

------------------------------

Here is two links discussing Gripen and the Swedish defense Industrys future.
(slow linking on this one)
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 1708p1.xml

And from 2007. Janes Defence Weekly
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6986749/Janes ... ind.com.au

So what do you think of it?

Uhm, can we discuss swapping our Gripen C/D's for some Gripen NG? We've got nice brandy we can drink while discussing

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

Wish I could koffiepit.
Not only for the brandy :)

How's the beer?

On the topic of beer:

Our local Castle Lager is the leader of the pack. I've deliberately tried some other beers available at our local bottle store - Hieneken, Budweiser, etc. - but they don't come near Castle.

The best time to down a Castle is of course on a balmy Highveld Saturday afternoon while the steaks are sizling on the fire and our cricket team rub the Australian cricket team's noses in the mud in their own backyard.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

Sounds nice, except that thing, what was it you called it?
Clickit was it? Strange name that one, is it like Scrabble??

Otherwise it was a truly poetic description koffiepit.
Almost the same as when I'm enjoying my heated Prips Blue, watching the polar bears at play.
They are such friendly critters you know, one just need to whistle and on they come, just like trained puppy's.
Somewhat bigger though.

Anyway:)
What are your views of the Gripen C/D, is it the operational range that you miss, or are there other things you would like to see on it. You've had Gripen since 2001 (around that ?) I think, so there should be a wishing list.

Hi Yor
Cricket is reminiscent of American baseball. Except there are two batters running to each others pitches and each time they reach the opposite pitch, one "run" is added to the batting team's score. It all boils down to an intricate game of chess where the fielding team tries to lure the batter into misjudging the trajectory of the ball or mistiming the ball to give the fielding team a chance to catch the batter out. Australia wore the world crown in the one day version of the game, where each side has the opportunity to face 300 balls and try to get so much runs on the scoreboard that the other side will have too much difficulty in surpassing their score when its there turn to bat. We took over the crown from them during the past summer though. Currently we are locked in battle with them during a five match series where they trashed us during the first game and we trashed them during the second game.

Oh ja, the Gripen wish list. During the bush war operational range was always a concern that severely limited the usefulness of the beloved Mirage 3's and Mirage F1's employed by the SAAF. The other concern was thrust in a dog fight. Apparently the Mig 23 could disengage from the Mirage F1 when it was put in a tight spot and run away whenever it chose to do so. Another shortcoming was that the Mirages operated at the limits of the ground radar range with the result that their situational awareness was less good than those of the Mig jocks who operated on their own door steps. The AAM's employed by the Mirages also did not always work as advertised. Apparently it was a great frustration for the Mirage jocks to see their missiles tracking the Migs, exploding with a big fireball near the Mig tail, and then see the Mig scuttling away from the fireball at great speed never to be caught again. Something which our fighter pilots tried to do was to hug the earth till deep into enemy terrain and on cue of their ground radar operators, pitch up at great speed to jump the Angolan Migs from underneath by surprise. Or if the were on a mud moving mission to pitch up some distance away from their targets and then toss their bombs at the target before diving away again to avoid the SAMs. So the wish list would be:
Range
Stealthyness
Good situation awareness capability
Thrust to weight ratio adequate to dog fight long enough for a confirmed kill
Deadly AAM’s
Cannon (both Mig kills were achieved with 30 mm cannon and not AAM’s)
The ability to sustain a reasonable amount of battle damage, i.e. redundant systems, and still return home, get repaired and fight again tomorrow. This would probably need repair kits quickly deployable in the operational area.
Quick turnaround time
Easy maintainability
Manoeuvrability and performance to dogfight: the Mirages that achieved Mig kills obtained it while in a close in dog fight. You can be onto the enemy or the enemy can be onto you before you know it, despite BVR capability.
I think, this wish list indicate that the Gripen NG will fit in very nicely with the SAAF’s
This is my impression from what I read in books like “Vlamgat”. The fighter jocks on this forum should feel free to flame me or add to my comments. I would also like to now what they think.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

FORGET PAGE 2!!! Read Page & 7 about the datalinking!

Okey koffiepit, I got to admit that I've heard of cricket before although I've found it a difficult game to understand :) I know that both you and England, India, Pakistan as well as Australia and New Zealand sit in rapture when there are national games. But not understanding it it seems very slow and strange. I liked that explanation likening it to a chess game, makes it easier to see how it may capture the interest of the viewers. It was very interesting reading about the way you fought with the mirage. Thinking of it, it might be somewhat stupid to discuss a 'wishing-list on a open forum? It's just my curiosity that never ends:)

And yes LoveSAAF, that data linking is 'hot stuff'. and the way you can connect to radars around a battlefield makes it much harder to use stealth as I see it, there will (at least, should:) always be some radars linking up to you from behind those so called enemy stealth aircrafts as the exhaust is hard to' hide'. Then you just need some Gripen's waiting in 'passive mode' along their route using that linked information. If you place them at roads along that route where one, depending on those other aircrafts capabilities (range), might expect them to come you can go up with a full fuel load, be 'steered passively' into their range, Ping them if you like or not:), let of your missiles and go for cover, or go in for a dogfight, depending on the situation, That's the 'new generation' of warfare as I understand it. How was it Cassius Clay said "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," , well maybe not a butterfly then, but still :)

There seems to be a lot of BS about Gripen, and yes, I'm a Swede and rather proud over that aircraft too:)
Norwegians are good guys and good fighters too, yet somehow feeling that they need to prove their 'independence' from us. I guess that might have some to do with their decision. To my eyes it would have been better for them and us too, if we had used the same 'system' as we are close neighboors. Wars is fought very quickly today, and when your logistic lines are too 'stretched out' as they probably will become in case of a 'quick' war then Sweden would be at their 'doorstep', USA? I think not.

Stealthiness you have with Gripen, its sheer size seems to make it harder to see, even though its not really made as a 'stealth' aircraft.

"Good situation awareness capability
Thrust to weight ratio adequate to dog fight long enough for a confirmed kill "
Those seems to me both to be answered by what I wrote above. Don't think 'square', think 'round', it's a whole new ballgame with Gripen's electronics :) All tough your country is a large one, you still can 'fix' your roads, cant you:) and the quotes (2001) you liked LoveSAAF about our 'linking system' is what I believe you to have already?

As for the armaments I believe that Gripen's is adequate? Or am I missing something there??

"Quick turnaround time
Easy maintainability"
Gripen is rather good on those things as I understands it.

The ability to sustain a reasonable amount of battle damage, i.e. redundant systems, and still return home, get repaired and fight again tomorrow. This would probably need repair kits quickly deployable in the operational area.

Gripen is a 'modular' rugged plane, easy to fix /repair as I understand it. But it's 'state of the art' though and that means that without electronics it will be un-flyable. But that same thing is what makes it so excellent in a dogfight. Then again, it's you that's using it, so you know better than me. On the other hand, any plane without electronics will die, sooner or later.

Do you know of any tests against the Mirage?
One could look at if the F-16 and F-18 have trained against them otherwise and see how it went there.
I will see what I can find, although I doubt any such evaluation have been made in Sweden, at least not 'officially'.

Did you read the comments in http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 234d227276

I'll cite some.from 'viperfan', he seems to have a good knowledge of Swedish aircrafts.

"The Swedish Air force has for decades gone to great lengths to officially undersell the capability of their jets especially about range and altitude. Keeping much of the general capability a secret (such as the datalinks they used already back on Draken) considering the warzaw pact next door. Even the JAS 39A and B models has a widely unknown war setting on the fuel tanks to "topfill" them by another 14%.

Bill... Gripen NG @ 7000 kg empty vs the F-16C empty @ 8936 kg. Internal fuel on the NG would be a pint more than the F-16C. But still, the NG is almost 2000 kg lighter with a more low drag airframe. Thrust to Weight is equal.

Can't speak for the JSF but the Gripen should at least be quite a lot more fuel effective than the F-16C. Not taking engine modes and altitude etc into account. ........

And

"Based on that data on internal fual, the Gripen NG with just one 1700L centreline tank and AAMs should provide air defence at greater rangea than the F-35A with ext fuel under the wings. With greater speed, agily and other performance and energy related factors such as acceleration.

The nice thing about the Gripen would be a flexibility to go from a very light fighter to some heavy roles. Should something unforseen happen you can also always jettison the drop tanks for more speed and agility."

I warmly reccomend that page, it's seems very near what Gripen is to me.
But if some pilots want to speak 'generally', sort of, I'm very interested in their impressions of Gripen contra Mirage. You must have tested them against each other?

Otherwise koffiepit, I wish you the best of days. And some good Cricket of course :)

-----

Take a look here.
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations ... brides.htm

Tomorrow we will trash that bunch of losers from Loserville again in another match of cricket with their captain, Ricky Ponting, like the mayor of Loserville. Watch this space.

Yor, I see that the SAAF want some Gripen C's delivered before the 2010 world cup. I'm sure they won't mind if you send Gripen NG's instead. Just a suggestion.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

As a 'backup' for your cricket team?
Taking Cricket to the 'next level' are we:)

I took a look on how we did at red flag in Canada 2006. We flow 98 pass of 103 there, using seven Gripen. Only one was canceled by fault on a Gripen (faulty laserpoint-pod, -direct translation -:) and the four other due to bad weather, stopped by the exercise-controllers. That means a total 'availability' of 99 %, that's pretty good, And managing it with fewer technicians than any other Nation, it speaks well for Gripen's 'ease of use' i think.

"The Red Flag exercises, held periodically at the Nellis Air Force Base since 1975, are very realistic aerial war games. The purpose is to give pilots from the U.S., NATO and other allied countries an opportunity to practice and refine their skills for real combat situations. This includes the use of "enemy" hardware and live ammunition for bombing exercises within the Nellis complex. The exercises with flares and all kinds of aircraft can make a spectacular show, especially at night. There are usually two or three sorties per day (except on weekends): One or two sorties during daytime and one in the evening or at night. The night exercises usually inlude only one half of the daytime forces.

There are two teams, the good guys (Blue Team) and the aggressors (Red Team). The Red Team is composed of Nellis AFB-based pilots specially trained for this purpose, flying F-15 and F-16 aircraft. The Blue Team is composed of the various guest "players" in their native aircraft.

The Red Team sets up at the west side of the Nellis Ranges, in the Tolicha Peak area between Tonopah and Beatty. The Blue Team sets up in the east, over Delamar Dry Lake east of Alamo, which the pilots call Texas Lake because of its shape. The objective for the Blue Team is to destroy targets in Ranges 74 thru 76, southeast of the Tonopah Test Range. The Red Team of course try their best to keep them from getting there. Both teams usually meet in the airspace west and north of Rachel, where they engage in very realistic dogfights. Railroad Valley, and especially the old Cedar Pipeline Ranch is an excellent place to watch the air show."

We were in the Blue team.
"
RED FLAG PARTICIPANTS
July 2008

Participating units are subject to change at any time.

Red Air
F-15s and F-16s, Nellis AFB, Nev.

Blue Air
F-15s, RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom
F-5s, Brazilian Air Force

Air-To-Ground
B-52s, Minot AFB, N.D.
F-16s, Turkish Air Force
Gripens, Swedish Air Force
F-16s, Hill AFB, Utah

Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
EA-6Bs, NAS Whidbey Island, Wash.

Command and Control; Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance
E-3, Tinker AFB, Okla.
E-3, NATO

Air Refueling
KC-135s, Fairchild AFB, Wash.
KC-135s, Turkish Air Force
KC-137, Brazilian Air Force "

We seemed to have had a problem with the range we were expected to fly though, due to us having no tankers available "In Red Flag we will therefore fly with three under-wing ferry tanks in order to have as much mission endurance as possible, says Edstrom. "We'll have to pay a penalty in terms of maneuverability but so be it," he concludes. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... N07038.xml

The Swedish Airforce seems to do the opposite to the American. I know from several sources (in-official) that we did ..very good,, at that exercise, but here in Sweden this exercise still is 'classified material' not available for the general public. The air force seems faster with recognizing other nations aircrafts and achievements than our own. Rather stupidly in my eyes, it's not strange that the Swedish public wonders what their tax-money went . Compare that to the Americans when something goes well for them, I doubt it takes more than a week before that material will be declassified for the papers to write about. We have a 'paranoia syndrome' over here at times :) probably due to our geographic location, but irritating all the same.

Just an update on how Saab have chosen to react, considering Norway's 'estimate' of relative costs between F35 JSF and Gripen.

---Translated----------

The Swedish magazine 'new technology' reported the 27 of February 2009 that Saab gave Denmark a set 'Full Life Cycle' price guarantee if they would buy Gripen. Michael Olofsson frpm Gripen Denmark explains that this is Saab's way of showing that Norway's calculations were in the wrong.

"the only way we can prove it is by giving this price guarantee" He says. The total price is esteemed to be 917 million Danish kronas per aircraft and full 'life cycle'., (165 002194. US Dollars) That is somewhere around half what the JSF is expected to cost over a life cycle, according to the magazine.

(In Swedish unfortunately)
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article526850.ece

-----
This will surely piss some people of , bigtime :)

And here is GAO:s preliminary report on the cost development for F35 JSF (March 2008)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09303.pdf

---
If you remember. that first pdf from 2001 talked about inadvertently 'supercruising' as it called nowadays after the F22 Raptor made its entrance. This seems to be Gripen's answer to those 'supersonic bangs' if I get it right?
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7416155/claims.html

And this one is just spec's.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avgrpn.html

Weaponloads.
http://www.saairforce.co.za/seed/public ... 20Iron.pdf

So the Swedish government ain't to happy either :)
This is a pdf descrining what the embassy's policy should be considering Gripen and Norway.
In Swedish.. http://www.nyteknik.se/multimedia/archi ... 44940a.pdf

What it states is in short
1. Norway asked for an offer on 48 aircrafts but made its calculations afterward on the price of 57 without checking for what a new price for those together would be by the Swedish FMV.

2. Norway also made their calculations based on thirty years operative use instead of as they speccified to Sweden twenty years, again without checking with FMV.

3. Norway included on their own an increased cost of four Billion (Norwegian?) Kronas for diverse needed 'upgrades(?)' that we only had some price estimates about. The rest of the price calculations were their own.

They have also counted on Gripen E/F getting produced in some tens of exemplars while expecting the JSF to be produced in the thousands?

-------

(Norway seems also to have made their cost estimation based on the opinion that in thirty five years expecting every other Gripen to crash(?)) (Since 1988 we have had five crashes, two from the preliminary test flights and three afterwards)

Reading those numbers, including the 'prototypes' nota bene, we get approximately one crash per, ah, five years, as a friendly guess. That, as Norway is counting on half its Airforce crashing in thirty five years, will give us a Norwegian planned Airforce of fourteen planes, right? Whereof seven still would be fly-able in thirty five years.
Rather small Air Force, don't you think.
Ah well.

The result used as a cost calculation (each plane) and then of the 'overall life cycle' costs as a whole, created a Norwegian price estimate ..double.. the estimate made from Swedish FMV.

------------END-----------------

Gripen will, due to size only, give approximate 25% of the radar reflection of a F35 JSF.
Our ASEA radar have the ability to 'see' stealthed aircrafts due to the 'electromagnetic holes' they will create in the air flying under stealth. We don't need to 'burn through' to do that, it will be 'passive mode', defining their position. The Lockheed Martins JSF.still weights around 2000kg to much, and they will have significant trouble reducing that weight. And when the aircraft is taxing on the ground it is near a 'meltdown' due to its heat conditions.

Our new Gripen will see a F35 JSF coming at least as fast as it will be able to see a Gripen, and that is in good time before any need to shoot. Take a look here about what the JSF stealth might be http://www.scribd.com/doc/2460745/The-R ... vivability
We choose away any increased 'stealth', due to that it generally cost a aircraft its flight performance, creates a small weapon load, combined with a higher fuel consumption. And if it comes to a dogfight? Which plane would you prefer..

Also, according to two reports, one from RAND and the other from Australia the stealth is somewhat exaggerated.. JSF won't, according to those, be able to keep its stealth with a heavy outer weapon load, which was a Norwegian demand. Doing so the F35 JSF will lose its 'signature adaption' as well as its 'claimed' better maneuverability than a Gripen. I find Raptor a much better aircraft when it comes to stealth but perhaps it still will be the F35 JSF that comes through in the end, not due to any 'stealth' though. http://www.airforce-technology.com/feat ... ture51242/

Here you have a blog discussing the JFS and the Rand pdf.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The ... rsy-05089/
It seems like a quite good read to me.

And the Rand report only, if that is what you want to see
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fil ... iefing.pdf
But the blog above is a recommended read before you read it.

NATOS Link16 is noway near to our TILDS according to what I've heard.

TIDLS (datalink)

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions. TIDLS also gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere.

TIDLS can connect up to four aircraft in a full-time two-way link. It has a range of 500 km and is highly resistant to jamming; almost the only way to jam the system is to position a jammer aircraft directly between the two communicating Gripens. Its basic modes include the ability to display the position, bearing, and speed of all four aircraft in a formation, including basic status information such as fuel and weapons state. The TIDLS is fundamentally different from broadcast-style links like Link 16. It serves fewer users but links them more closely together, exchanging much more data, and operating much closer to real time.

TIDLS information, along with radar, EW, and mapping data, appears on the central MFD. The display reflects complete sensor fusion: a target that is being tracked by multiple sources is one target on the screen. Detailed symbols distinguish between friendlies, hostiles, and unidentified targets and show who has targeted whom.

Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind.
The Flygvapnet has already proven some of the tactical advantages of the link, including the ability to spread the formation over a much wider area. Visual contact between the fighters is no longer necessary, because the datalink shows the position of each aircraft. Leader and wingman roles are different: the pilot in the best position makes the attack, and the fact that he has targeted the enemy is immediately communicated to the three other aircraft.

A basic use of the datalink is "silent attack." An adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by a fighter radar that is outside missile range. He may not be aware that another, closer fighter is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a missile launch without using its own radar. After launch, the shooter can break and escape, while the other fighter continues to pass tracking data to the missile. In tests, Gripen pilots have learned that this makes it possible to delay using the AMRAAM's active seeker until it is too late for the target to respond.

But the use of the link goes beyond this, towards what the Swedish Air Force calls "samverkan," or close-cooperation. One example is the use of the Ericsson PS-05/A radar with TIDLS. An Ericsson paper compares its application, with identical sensors and precise knowledge of the location of both platforms, to human twins: "Communication is possible without explaining everything."

"Radar-samverkan," the Ericsson paper suggests, equips the formation with a super-radar of extraordinary capabilities. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation. The target's signals will often identify it as well.

The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.

Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target's track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.

In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.

-------End----------------------

Can you see why I call it a 3D sphere wihout any Airborne Warning and Control System involved. Everything we have, on land, sea, in the air and space are connected into one huge 'peer to peer' network. And its redundancy becomes multiplied for each unit coming into it, just like Internet.

So its real sad that the Norwegians found JSF the 'better' choice for them. As every incoming unit strengthen it more than just by a factor one. Here is a truly excellent source for those of you enjoying Gripen... http://www.jas39gripen.blogspot.com/

Yor

there is a saying that if you want to beat a dog, you will always find a stick to beat him with. The same with Norway's finding excuses to purcahse the F35 instead of the Gripen. It may indicate a certain political coldness from Norway towards Sweden. I've read about the Swedish airforce conducting fighter vs. fighter exercises with the Norwegian airforce. It would be interisting how these exercises pan out in the future with the Gripen pitted against the F35.

By the way, we beat Australia on Thursday night in one day clicket and strengthened our position as the top dogs in the business.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry